Friday, April 02, 2004

Yesterday's posting found my insightful curmudgeon (my husband) railing against the way The Post allowed a corporate spokeswoman to contradict the findings of a study on high fructose corn syrup, and against shills for the Republican Party like KrauthammerMona Charen, and Cal Thomas. He defended Molly, though--no shill she--and thought Kit Bond didn't deserve space among the Letters. Today it's my turn. Let's go in reverse order. I write the Post about once a month, and it's been almost three years since they published anything of mine. Naturally, I agree with Connie that Kit Bond deserves no special consideration. I mean, I'm beginning to wonder if someone over there blackballed me. Why does that corrupt old soul get printed--what, just because he's a senator? Next: The notion of Molly as a shill is ludicrous. When she gets mad at Democrats, they better duck for cover. And besides, she has the interests of ordinary people at heart--just like the scientists who conducted the study on high fructose corn syrup. Which brings me full circle. Journalists should quote the opposition when the subject falls in the category of opinion, like which tax policy is best.

BUT, if I don't want to read shills for the Republicans, I might as well drop the Post-Dispatch and pick up The Nation. After all, doesn't the Post owe the public a chance to read Amy White? Many of its readers appreciate and agree with her, more's the pity. I'm just here to say that this business of a free press can drive a person crazy. But until we get it all figured out, I still agree with my husband: Miss Spokesliar for the Grocery Manufacturers of America should have been left out of that article. She didn't provide balance. Who's kidding whom? Her only purpose was to muddy the waters.